RAVINDRA v. GHUGE &Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:21707-DB wp8674-22-1(Corrected as per order dated 10.09.2024)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 8674 OF 20221. Manjulabai Agrawal Sevabhavi Sanstha,Through its PresidentKalpesh Rameshchandra AgrawalAge: ___ years, Occu: Business,R/o Chinchpada Taluka Navapur,District Nandurbar.2.Manish Omprakash Agrawal,Age: 44 years, Occu: Business,R/o Chinchpada, Tal. & Dist. Nandurbar....PETITIONERSV/s.1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Nandurbar.2. The Competent Authority and orSpecial Land Acquisition Officer(National Highway No.6) /Assistant Collector, Nandurbar,Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar.3.National Highway Authority of India,Through Project Director,NHAI-PIU, Dhule, Mansaram Nagar,Near Circuit House, Sakri Road,Dhule – 424 002.4.Deputy Superintendent of Land Record,Navapur, Tal. Navapur,Dist. Nandurbar.... RESPONDENTS...…Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. R.B. Bhosale, Advocate for Respondent-UOIMr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent-StateMr. V.D. Sapkal, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. D.S. Manorkar, Advocate for Resp.No.3 ......1 of 25
Legal Reasoning
wp8674-22-1Mr. V.D. Sapkal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the RespondentNo. 3 and learned AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 4.4.Perused the Written Notes of Arguments tendered on behalfof Petitioner as well as on behalf of Respondent No.3-National HighwayAuthority of India. Having regard to the rival submissions canvassed onbehalf of both the sides, we have gone through the Petition paper book.On careful perusal of the record, prima facie, following questions arisefor consideration which are as under:- i) Whether Writ jurisdiction can be exercised for initiation ofcontempt proceeding for disobedience of order passed by this Court inW.P. No. 7500/2020, dtd. 29.07.2021?(ii) How much area of land out of Gut no. 200/2 has been acquiredby the Respondent No. 3 under notifications dated 29.10.2012 issuedunder Section 3D and 3G in pursuance of notification dated 11.11.2011issued under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act? 5.In order to order ascertain the question No.1, we have gonethrough the order dated 29.07.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.7476/2020, 7490/2020; 7499/2020, 7498/020, and 7500/ 2020 whichis reproduced for ready reference as under:“1. All these petitions are being disposed off in the light of achart submitted by respondent No.2 National Highway Authorityof India (For short, NHAI) which is acceptable to the petitionersand considering certain directions issued by this Court injudgment dated 03/07/2021, delivered in WP No.5250/2020 filedby Bhaguji Nathaji Maind and others Vs. the Union of India andothers.3 of 25
Arguments
wp8674-22-1CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON :27th June, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON :16th August, 2024 JUDGMENT (Per: Y.G. Khobragade, J.) :-1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent ofboth the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.2.By the present Petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the Petitioners have put-forth prayer clauses Band C as under :-“B) By way of appropriate Writ order or directions in thelike nature, appropriate contempt proceeding be initiatedagainst the respondent Authorities for deliberate violation ofthe order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7500/2020dated 29.07.2021.C) By way of appropriate Writ order or directions in thelike nature, the respondent Authorities be directed to issuenotification under Section 3A of National Highway Act, 1956and further be directed to pay the compensation in pursuantto the report prepared by the respondent Authorities asdirected by this Honourable High Court in Writ Petition No.7500/2020 dated 29.07.2021.”3.Heard at length Mr. Bagul, learned counsel for thePetitioner, Mr. Bhosale, the Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.1,2 of 25
Decision
wp8674-22-12. The chart (3 pages) placed before us by respondent No.2is taken on record and marked as 'X-1 collectively'. This chartshall be a part and parcel of this order.3. In WP No.7499/2020, the National Highway Authority ofIndia/ respondent No.2 has acquired 9656 Sq.Mts. of land forwhich an award is delivered and amounts are paid to thebeneficiaries. NHAI further desires to acquire 8050 sq.mts. ofland and for which purpose, a notification is issued and an awardis yet to be delivered. The NHAI submits that the legal procedureset out u/s 3 of the National Highways Act, shall be followed andany person who may have a title or interest, may raise anobjection before the appropriate authority. The petitioners areagreeable.4. In WP No.7490/2020, NHAI indicates from X-1 that11366 Sq.Mts. of land has been acquired and a further 19156sq.mtrs. of land is required. A notification has been issued andCALA will consider the objections of any person whose land isaffected, by following the procedure laid down u/s. 3 of theNational Highways Act and all objections would be dealt with byCALA. The petitioners are agreeable.5. In WP No.7476/2020, NHAI makes a statement that nofurther land is needed and this petition can be disposed off.6. In WP no.7500/2020, NHAI makes a statement that nofurther land is required and this petition can be disposed off.7. In WP No.7498/2020, besides the 200 Sq.Mts. acquiredfor which an award has been declared, no further land is soughtto be acquired by the NHAI.8. In view of the above statements, we dispose off all thesepetitions by recording the above statements in the light of X-1.9. In the event of any measurement of lands being requiredto be done, the District Collector, Nandurbar shall monitor suchmeasurement. If any of the petitioners are aggrieved by anyportion of their land, over and above the lands mentioned in X-1,being affected, they would be at liberty to raise a dispute beforea CALA. The measurement of lands, if required, shall beundertaken by the District Collector and in presence of all the4 of 25 wp8674-22-1litigating parties/title holders/persons having interests in theproperty, preferably within a period of 30 days.10. Needless to state, any land over and above the details setout in X-1 is to be acquired, the procedure laid down in Lawshall be followed.11. As these petitions are disposed off, ad-interim orderpassed by this Court stands vacated.12. Parties are at liberty to act on this order being uploadedon the official website of the Bombay High Court.” 6.Mr. Bagul, the learned counsel for the Petitioners canvassedthat the Petitioner No.1-Trust had filed W. P. No. 7500 of 2020 andprayed for quashment of order dated 19th October, 2020 passed by theRespondent No.2 NHAI (present Respondent No.3) whereby theproposal submitted by the Competent Authority/Land AcquisitionOfficer National Highway No.6 was turned down. On 29.07.2021, thisCourt was pleased to pass an order and directed that in the event of anymeasurement of lands being required to be done, the District Collector,Nandurbar, shall monitor such measurement. If any of the Petitionersare aggrieved by any portion of their land over and above the landsmentioned in X-1, being affected, they would be at liberty to raise adispute before CALA. The measurement of land, if required, shall beundertaken by the District Collector and in presence of all the litigatingparties, title, holders, persons having interest in the property preferablywithin a period of 30 days and if any land over and above set out in ‘X-1’ is to be acquired, the procedure laid down in law shall be followed.5 of 25 wp8674-22-1However, the Respondents have carried out measurement of GutNo.200/2 on 14.09.2021 in presence of the Petitioners. Accordingly, on08.10.2021, the Respondent No.4 prepared a report stating that earliermeasurement which was carried out matched, however, an area 19,300sq. mtrs from Gut No. 200/2 was affected. Therefore, the officers ofRespondent Nos.1 & 3 intentionally and willfully disobeyed order dated29.07.2021 passed by this Court in W. P. No. 7500 of 2020, hence,prayed for initiation of action against Respondent No.1 under theContempt of Courts Act. 7.Mr. V .D. Sapkal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing forthe Respondent No.3 canvassed that after the order was passed by thisCourt, the Petitioners raised an objection on 04.08.2021 with theRespondent No.2 - Dy. SLR, Navapur vide its letter No. 956/2021stating that joint measurement was scheduled on 14.09.2021, whichdoes not suggest that the Respondents have intentionally or willfullydisobeyed the order of this Court. Since the Respondents have not actedagainst the order of this Court nor deliberately avoided to obey theorder. Therefore, no action under the Contempt of Courts Act iswarranted.8.Needless to say that in Para 6 of above quoted order of thisCourt, it clearly shows that the Respondent No.3 - NHAI made a specificstatement that no further land is required from Gut no. 200/2, which6 of 25 wp8674-22-1was subject matter of W.P. No. 7500 of 2020. In Para No. 9 of abovequoted order, it is further observed that in the event of anymeasurement of lands being required to be done, the District Collector,Nandurbar, shall monitor such measurement. If any of the Petitionersare aggrieved by any portion of their land over and above the landsmentioned in ‘X-1’, being affected, they would be at liberty to raise adispute before CALA. The measurement of lands, if required, shall beundertaken by District Collector and in presence of all the litigatingparties, title, holders, person having interest in the property preferablywithin a period of 30 days. 9.Since the Respondent No.3-NHAI had made a categoricalstatement that no further land is required from Gut no. 200/2, whichwas subject matter of W. P. No. 7500 of 2020, therefore, we do not findany willful disobedience of the order dated 29.07.2021 by theRespondent Authorities.10.Further after order was passed by this Court on29.07.2021, the Petitioner No.2 raised an objection on 04.08.2021 withthe Respondent No.2 - Dy. SLR, Navapur vide its letter No. 956/2021stating that joint measurement was scheduled on 14.09.2021 and samewas carried out in presence of the Petitioners. Since the Respondentshave not acted against the order passed by this Court nor deliberately7 of 25 wp8674-22-1avoided to obey said order, hence, prayer of the Petitioners to initiatecontempt proceedings against Respondent No.1 is unwarranted.11.Mr. Bagul, learned counsel appearing for the Petitionerscanvassed that on 20.06.2019 (date not disclosed by the Petitioners. Wehave perused it from Exh. R-5 produced by Respondent No.3), thePetitioner No.2 - Manish Omprakash Agrawal purchased subject landfrom the Petitioner No.1 - Manjulabai Agrawal Sevabhavi Sanstha, whowas sole Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7500 of 2020.12.Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner furthercanvassed that on 11.11.2011, the Government of India issued aNotification u/s 3A of N.H. Act, 1956 and notified the Writ land for FourLane widening of National Highway No.6. On 29.10.2012 a notificationu/s 3A & 3D was published. As per said notification, the landadmeasuring 6438 sq.mtrs. from Gut No. 200/2 of village Chinchpadawas notified for acquisition.13.It is further canvassed that in the year 2019, the PetitionerNo.1 Sanstha/Trust applied for conversion of said land into Non-agriculture and prepared tentative Layout Plan then the Petitionersrealized that more than 19,000 sq.mtrs area was shown underacquisition of the N.H.A.I. Thereafter, on 01.06.2019, (correct date is01.01.2019), the Petitioner No.1 - Sanstha applied for measurement of8 of 25 wp8674-22-1entire Gut No. 200/2. On 18.11.2019, the Respondent No.4 - Dy. SLR,Navapur measured Gut No. 200/2 and prepared a report. The reportwas forwarded to Respondent No. 2 - CALA on 15.06.2019. As per saidmeasurement report, the Respondent-NHAI acquired 19,300 sq.mtrs ofland and previously land admeasuring 7700 sq. mtrs., was alreadyacquired for the National Highway No. 6. 14.The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that on thebasis of measurement report dated 06.09.2019 prepared by RespondentNo. 4 - Dy. SLR, Navapur it was requested to the Respondent No. 3 toissue notification u/s 3A of the Act of 1956, however, the RespondentNo. 3 - NHAI raised queries and requested Respondent No.2 to rectifythose queries. Accordingly, the Respondent No.2 rectified queries andsubmitted fresh report on 20.12.2019 to Respondent No.3 with arequest to issue notification u/s 3A. After receipt of proposal dated20.12.2019, the Respondent No.3 again raised queries which wererectified by Respondent No. 2 vide reports dated 23.06.2020 and17.08.2020. After receipt of said proposal, the Respondent No.3deputed its representatives and Dy. SLR, Navapur to visit Writ land toverify the same. Thereafter, the Respondent No.4 prepared a reportdated 19.10.2020 showing that out of Gut No. 200/2, total area of 7764sq. mtrs., has already been published in 3D notification for Gut No.200/2 and 200/1/C. The area mentioned in new 3-A proposal is 115369 of 25 wp8674-22-1sq. mtrs out of Gut No.200/2. The nature of land was shown asagricultural at the time of previous notification for acquisition, butunder new proposal nature of land was shown as non-agriculturalstanding in the name of Manjulabai Agrawal Sevabhavi Sanstha. Thearea under consideration does not change and additional land is notrequired from Gut No. 200/2 for the project. The said land wasconverted to Non-Agricultural in 2019. Therefore, this new land parcelwas left out of notification.15.Thereafter, Petitioner No.1 Sanstha/Trust soughtinformation under Right to Information (in short RTI) from theRespondent No.4 - Dy. SLR, Navapur in respect of measurement carriedout on 26.08.2020 and 02.10.2020. The Respondent No.4 providedinformation that earlier report dated 28.10.2020 is still intact and nomeasurement was done. Being aggrieved by said order, the PetitionerNo.1 - Trust had approached this Court by filing W. P. No.7500/2020.On 29.07.2021, this Court (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge and S.G. MehareJJ.) disposed off said Petition and observed that NHAI does not requirefurther land from Gut Nos. 200/2 and 200/1/C. 16.Thereafter, Petitioner No. 1 - Sanstha with due permissionof the Ld. Jt. Charity Commissioner sold Writ property to PetitionerNo.2. Thereafter, on 04.08.2021, Petitioner No.2 applied to the DistrictCollector for joint measurement of Gut No. 200/2 and as per the order10 of 25 wp8674-22-1passed in W.P. No. 7500 of 2020. On 24.08.2021, Collector, Nandurbarpassed an order directing the Respondent No. 4 - Dy. SLR, Navapur tocarry out joint measurement of Gut No.200/2. 17.In pursuance of order dated 24.08.2021, Respondent No.4issued notices to the Petitioner and officers of Respondent No.3 toremain present for measurement of land bearing Gut No.200.Accordingly, the Respondent No.4 carried out the measurement on14.09.2021 and prepared a report on 08.10.2021 stating that themeasurement which was carried out earlier tallies with the newmeasurement sheet. As per previous measurement sheet, the landadmeasuring 19,300 sq.mtrs., from Gut No. 200/2 has been affected.However, though representatives of Respondent No. 3 were present, butthey refused to sign the measurement sheet and Panchnama. 18. On 16.11.2021, Petitioner No.2, who is subsequentpurchaser of Writ land sought information under RTI from RespondentNo.4 - Dy. SLR Navapur about acquisition of land out of Gut No. 200/2of village Chinchpada. On 25.11.2021, the Respondent No.4 issuedcommunication therein stated that on 22.09.2021 measurement of GutNo. 200/2 of village Chinchpada was carried out and as per jointmeasurement land admeasuring 19300 sq.mtrs. from Gut no. 200/2was acquired. 11 of 25 wp8674-22-119.The learned counsel for the Petitioners further canvassedthat on 17.05.2022, the Petitioner No.2 submitted an application andpointed out that he was out of station from 2nd May to 6th May, 2022,and by taking advantage of his absence, the Respondent No.3 - NHAIstarted construction of road and completed the same. Therefore, thePetitioner approached the District Collector with a grievance that theRespondent No.3 acquired his land without paying the compensationand also has not complied the order dated 29.07.2021 passed by thiscourt in W. P. No. 7500/2020. Therefore, the Petitioner prayed forissuance of Writ of mandamus against the Respondents for issuance ofNotification u/s 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 and to paycompensation pursuant to the report prepared by the Respondent-Authorities and to act as per order dated 29.07.2021 issued by thisCourt in W.P. No. 7500/2020.20.To buttress these submissions the learned counsel for thePetitioners relied on case of Sukh Dutt Ratra and Anr. V/s. State of H. P.;(2022) 7 S.C.C. 508, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that,nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process, orauthorization of law and the State on ground of delay and lachescannot evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom privateproperty has been expropriated.12 of 25 wp8674-22-121.He further relied on the case of Govind Poslya Gavit andAnr. V/s. Competent Authority, 2022 (5) Mh. L.J. 632, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the Petitioner cannot bedispossessed without due process of law and without acquisition of landby following procedure under Section 3-A to 3-E of the Act,1956. Incited case, an attempt was made by Respondents to take possession ofthe lands of the Petitioners for carrying out construction and it was heldthat said act is clearly in breach of Section 3-A to 3-D of the Act, 1956and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. However, ratio of boththese cases relied by the Petitioners are not applicable to the facts andcircumstances of this case.22.Respondent No. 3 filed affidavit in Reply and countered theclaim of the Petitioners. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, the learned Sr. Counselappearing for Respondent No.3 submits that the Central Governmentpublished a Notification No. 2549 (A) dated 11/11/2011 u/s 3A of N.H.Act, 1956 and notified the land from Gut No.200 admeasuring 8665sq.mtrs. On 29.10.2012, a notification bearing No. 2597 (A) waspublished for acquisition of land admeasuring 6438 sq.mtrs from GutNo. 200/2 of village Chinchpada owned by Petitioner No. 1 ManjulabaiAgarwal Trust/Sanstha. As per joint measurement reports dated27.02.2013 & 26.04.2013, the Dy. SLR, Navapur informed aboutacquisition of land admeasuring 6438 sq.mtrs from Gut No. 200/2 of13 of 25 wp8674-22-1village Chinchpada owned by Petitioner No.1. Thereafter, on29.07.2013, an award bearing No. 09/2011 came to be passed and anamount of compensation Rs. 16,78,387/- in respect of land Gut No.200/2, Adm. 6438 sq.mtrs, has been disbursed in favour of thePetitioner No.1 - Sanstha on 25.11.2013. Accordingly, on 15.06.2019,the Respondent No.4 informed about acquisition of land admeasuring19300 sq. mtrs. out of Gut No. 200/2 for National Highway No.6. Asper joint measurement report, the land adm. 7700 sq.mtrs. out of GutNo. 200/2 is affected.23.The learned senior counsel further canvassed that the NH-6road is already in existence since five decades ago and it is passingthrough some parts of Gut No.200. Since the Central Governmentintended for widening of NH-6, therefore, on 11.11.2011, a notificationNo.2549 (A) u/s 3-A of the Act was issued declaring intention foracquisition of some portion of Gut No.200 of village Chinchpada Tq.Navapur, District Nandurbar. After publication of notification, theRespondent-Authority was authorized to enter into the land to beacquired for the purpose of measurement and conducted jointmeasurement of Gut no. 200 through the office of Respondent No.4. Asper joint measurement map, it shows the existing NH-6 road andproposed land under acquisition from the Gut No.200.14 of 25 wp8674-22-124.It is further canvassed on behalf of Respondent No.3 thatthe notification no. 2597 (A) dated 29.10.2012 published u/s 3-D of theAct, shows acquisition of land for the road widening, however, beforepublication of the notification a joint measurement was carried out anddetermined about acquisition of 6438 sq. mtrs land from Gut no.200/2,which has been identified by the officials of Respondent no.3 and thePetitioners. Therefore, the Competent Authority determined the amountof compensation of Rs. Rs.16,78,387/- for the area of 6438 sq. mtrsland from Gut no.200/2 as per award dated 29.07.2013 and no excessland is affected due to acquisition out of Gut No.200/2.25.Mr. Sapkal, the learned senior counsel further submits thatthe P.W.D., had provided details of road map of NH-6 while handingover its charge and it shows about existence of 30 meters wide road atthe disputed location. The Petitioners have not denied about existenceof old NH-6. As per joint measurement reports dated 15.06.2019 and22.09.2021 drawn by the Respondent No.4 and relied upon by thePetitioners does not show existence of 30 meters wide road. Therefore,the officers of Respondent No.3 denied about joint measurement report.Therefore, no further land is required in respect of Gut No. 200/2.Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.26.Mr. S.K. Tambe, the learned A.G.P., appearing for theRespondent Nos. 1 & 4 canvassed in vehemence that as per joint15 of 25 wp8674-22-1measurement report chainage 615.000 to 639.000 a road of 30 meterwide in Gut No. 200/2 is shown in demarcation certificate.Approximately, 11536 sq.mtrs land is already covered in NationalHighway and compensation in respect of land Adm. 6338 sq.mtrs and1326 sq.mtrs out of Gut No. 200/2 and 200/1/C is already paid to thePetitioners. As per joint measurement report dated 16.10.2015 existingroad of 30 meter was shown in the said map and no additional landfrom Gut No. 200 is required. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of thepetition.27.The learned AGP further canvassed that the Petitioner No.2purchased area from Gut No.200/2 including the area of old existingroad from Petitioner No.1 - Sanstha on 20.06.2019 and thereafterconverted the said land into Non-Agricultural in order to seek hugecompensation though the acquisition proceeding of Gut No.200/2 wascompleted in the year 2013. The Petitioner No.2 with an ulteriormotive has not shown proper four corner boundaries of land in the sale-deed. So also, recital of sale-deed does not disclose that the land in saledeed is abutting to NH-6.28. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf ofboth the sides, we have gone through the Petition paper book. Needlessto say that in the year 1972 an area of 3 A 22 R i.e. (14340.569sq.mtrs) and 35 R i.e. (3500 sq. mtrs.) from land bearing Gut Nos.16 of 25 wp8674-22-180/1B & 80/2 have already been acquired under award dated28.03.1972 by following due process of law under the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 for diversion of road to Navapur Town. The measurement andschedule of land prepared by the office of Executive Engineer, B & CDept., Dhule show dimensions of 325 meters x 45 meters which is equalto 14,625 sq.mtrs. area and 2 x (30 meters x 36 meters) which is equalto 2160 sq. mtrs. area proposed for acquisition from Gut No. 80/1B andGut No. 80/2 respectively. The award dated 28.03.1972 shows that thenotification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on24.12.1970 and the acquisition process from the Navapur village wasinitiated. The publication of notice u/s 4(1) of the Act and notices wereserved upon the interested persons calling for objections. Thereafter,notification u/s 6 was published on 24.06.1971. 29.In case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Digambar; AIR 1995SC 1991, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the claim forcompensation of a road which was constructed in 1971 cannot beentertained after a lapse of 20 years and more so, for unexplained delayand laches on the part of the Petitioners for preferring such belatedclaim.30.In the case in hand the Petitioner No. 2 has filed anAffidavit Rejoinder and contended that he received information on07.06.2023 under the Right to Information Act, from the office of Dy.17 of 25 wp8674-22-1S.L.R., Navapur, wherein clause 6 of said information reveals the depthof old road as 7 Meter, and the width is 410 Meter i.e. total 2,870sq.mtrs from Gut No. 200 part. But no compensation was paid forconstruction of said PWD road. Needless to say that neither PetitionerNo.1 nor Petitioner No. 2 was owner of Gut No.200 in the year 1971 orat the relevant time. Therefore, the Petitioners are having no right toagitate the grievance about non payment of compensation foracquisition of land out of Gut No. 200 for construction of old road.Nonetheless, claim of the Petitioners to that effect is hopelessly barredby law of limitation.31.The Petitioners have claimed that exact area required forconstruction of National Highway from Gut No. 200 part is 19,300 sq.mtrs as per the measurement carried out in pursuant to the order dated29.07.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 7500/2020. Out of 19,300sq.mtrs land, an award of 7,764 sq. mtrs. from Gut No. 200 part isalready passed. The Petitioner has not disputed about passing of awardfor 7,764 sq.mtrs of land and payment of compensation. The dispute ofthe Petitioners is that though the Respondent No.3 acquired 11,536sq.mtrs of land, but no award has been passed and no compensationwas paid. According to the Petitioners as per information providedunder RTI by Respondent No. 3 NHAI, the PWD had constructed road of15 mtr. x 400 mtr. = 6,000 sq.mtrs, still the Respondents are duty18 of 25 wp8674-22-1bound to publish notification u/s 3A and 3D for remaining area i.e.11,536 sq.mtrs. - 6,000 sq. mtrs. = 5,536 sq.mtrs., out of Gut No. 200part. As per documents supplied by the Respondent No. 4 - Dy. SLR, itshows that the area of old existing PWD road i.e. 7 mtr. x 410 mtr. =2,870 sq. mtrs. Then the Respondent Authorities are required topublish 3A and 3D of 11,356 sq. mtrs. - 2,870 sq. mtrs. = 8,486 sq.mtrs. for rest of the part.32.Needless to say that the Respondent No.4 prepared a reportdated 19.10.2020 stating that total area of 7764 sq. mtrs., land fromGut No. 200/2 is required for acquisition and notification u/s 3-D of theAct published for Gut Nos. 200/2 and 200/1/C. The area mentioned innew notification u/s 3-A proposal is 11536 sq. mtrs, out of GutNo.200/2. So also, the nature of land was agricultural at the time ofprevious notification for acquisition, however, in the new proposal u/s3-A of the Act, nature of land is shown as Non-Agricultural standing inthe name of Manjulabai Agrawal Sanstha. The area under considerationhas not changed and additional land is not required for the project atthis location. The Respondent No.4 has already notified said land in theyear 2012 but it was converted to Non-Agricultural in the year 2019.Therefore, Gut No.200/2 should not be considered as new land pocketwhich was left out of notification. The office of Respondent No.4-Dy.SLR, Navapur repeatedly conducted measurements and sent reports19 of 25 wp8674-22-1with modified area. As per its letter dated 15.06.2019 he stated thatland Adm. 19300 out of Gut No. 200/2 of Kalpesh Ramesh ChandraAgrawal is acquired. 33. Therefore, it seems that there is existence of disputedquestions of fact about measurement of Gut No. 200/2 carried out bythe Respondent No.4. On 14.09.2021, as per order dated 24.08.2021passed by the Collector, Nandurbar. So also, preparation of reportstating that the measurement which was carried out earlier matcheswith new measurement sheet. As per previous measurement sheet landadmeasuring 19,300 sq. mtrs. from Gut No. 200/2 is affected, but saidmeasurement sheet does not bear signature of the representatives of theRespondent No. 3. 34.On the contrary, Respondent No.3 contended that as perjoint measurement reports dated 15.06.2019 and 22.09.2021, drawn bythe Respondent No.4 and relied upon by the Petitioners does not showabout existence of 30 meter wide road. As per Notification No. 2549 (A)dated 11/11/2011 u/s 3A of N. H. Act, 1956, land admeasuring 6438sq. mtrs., from Gut No. 200/2 of village Chinchpada owned by thePetitioner No.1 - Trust and subsequently purchased by the PetitionerNo.2 along with Shri Niranjan Omprakash Agrawal under sale-deeddated 20.06.2019 after publication of notification for widening of NH-6.The Petitioners have not joined Shri Niranjan Omprakash Agrawal as20 of 25 wp8674-22-1party Petitioner. As per joint measurement reports dated 27.02.2013 &26.04.2013, the Respondent No.4 Dy. SLR, Navapur informed aboutacquisition of land admeasuring 6438 sq.mtrs from Gut No.200/2 ofvillage Chinchpada owned by Petitioner No.1 - Manjulabai AgrawalTrust. Thereafter, on 29.07.2013, Award No. 09/2011 was passed andamount of compensation of Rs.16,78,387/- in respect of land Gut No.200/2, Adm. 6438 sq. mtrs., was disbursed in favour of the PetitionerNo.1 - Sanstha on 25.11.2013. Thereafter, on 15.06.2019, RespondentNo.4 informed about acquisition of land to the extent of 19300 sq. mtrsout of Gut No. 200/2 for National Highway No.6. As per jointmeasurement report, the land adm. 7700 sq.mtrs. out of Gut No. 200/2is affected. As per joint measurement report, an area of 7764 sq. mtrs.from Gut Nos. 200/2 and area 1326 sq. mtrs from Gut No.200/1/C wasalready acquired and no additional area of land is required from GutNo.200/2 for widening of NH-6. In view of above, though thePetitioners contended that an additional area of 11536 sq. mtrs fromGut No.200/2 has been affected due to acquisition, but in fact said areaof 11536 sq. mtrs is the area of old existing road. Therefore, it appearsthere is existence of disputed questions of facts in respect ofmeasurement of land Gut No. 200/2.35. In City and Industrial Development Corporation V/s. DosuAardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Ors.; (2009) 1 SCC 168, Hon’ble Supreme21 of 25 wp8674-22-1Court has held that the High Court while exercising its jurisdictionunder Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether;(a) adjudication of Writ Petition involves any complex anddisputed question of facts and whether they can be satisfactorilyresolved; (b) the petition reveals all material facts;(c) the Petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;(e) Ex facie barred by the law of limitation;(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any validlaw; and host of other factors. 36.Needless to say that since the Petitioner No.2 was notsatisfied about measurement of land, therefore, he applied to theCollector Nandurbar for measurement of land Gut No. 200/2. On24.08.2021, Collector, Nandurbar, passed an order and directed theRespondent No. 4 - Dy. SLR, Navapur to carry out joint measurement ofsaid land. Thereafter, the Respondent No.4 issued notices to thePetitioners and officers of the Respondent No.3 directing them toremain present for measurement of said land. Accordingly, on14.09.2021, the Respondent No.4 has carried out measurement and22 of 25 wp8674-22-1prepared a report stating that the measurement which was carried outearlier matches with new measurement sheet. As per previousmeasurement sheet, land admeasuring 19,300 sq.mtrs from Gut No.200/2 is affected, but said measurement sheet does not bear signatureof the representatives of the Respondent No.3. No doubt, the PetitionerNo.2 claimed that, though the representatives of Respondent No. 3 werepresent at the time of measurement, but they refused to sign on themeasurement sheet and Panchnama, however, said fact was denied bythe Respondent No. 3.37.No doubt, while passing order dated 7th February, 2024, thisCourt observed about leveling serious allegations by the Respondent No.2 N.H.A.I., about creation of documents and forgery. Therefore, thisCourt called upon to furnish affidavit declaring that if it is eventuallynoticed in either of these proceedings or any other proceedingsconcerning the Writ land, that any of these Petitioners are found to beindulged in fabrication of record or forgery or any dishonest act, theywould deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs) towards cost and thatthey would be willing to face criminal prosecution. Therefore, thePetitioner was called upon to file second affidavit that if he would beliable for the same consequences. In response to said order dated07.02.2024, the Petitioner filed affidavit dated 15.02.2024 andvoluntarily deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- with the Registry of this Court23 of 25 wp8674-22-1through Demand Draft No. 951504 dated 13th February, 2024. ThisCourt had not directed that the amount be deposited in advance.Needless to say that, both, the Petitioner and the officer of RespondentNo.2, have alleged against each other about creation of documents andforgery. This Court cannot deal with disputed issues and conclude as towhich of the documents are forged and fabricated. This could bepossible in a Civil Suit with the aid of oral and documentary evidenceand upon producing the original revenue record. Therefore, issuepertaining to manufacturing of documents and forgery of documents iskept open, which can be decided by the Competent Court of law, if theparties desire to avail of the remedy permissible in law. Therefore,amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited by the Petitioner with the Registryof this Court needs to be refunded with accrued interest, if any.38.Since the Respondent No.3 - NHAI made a categoricalstatement that no further land is required from Gut No. 200/2 and assuch an area of 7764 sq. mtrs., has already been acquired from Gut Nos.200/2 and 200/1/C for widening of NH-6. But as per the contention ofthe Petitioners an additional area of 11536 sq. mtrs from Gut No.200/2is affected due to acquisition in fact such area is part of old existingroad. Therefore, it clearly shows that disputed and complex question offacts are involved in the present case, hence, we do not find any cogentreason to exercise Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution24 of 25 wp8674-22-1of India to ascertain exact acquisition of land from Gut no. 200/2 as perratio laid down in case of City And Industrial Development Corporation,(supra). Therefore, present Petition is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.39. The amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited by the PetitionerNo.2 be refunded to him with accrued interest, if any. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]mub25 of 25